If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

THANK YOU, for finally comprehending this point. And not everything human is a person or an individual human being. Things like embryos.

According to the law, human being and person are interchangable terms. Of course, do feel free to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by wilbur

We do.

And we have. Refer to Black's Legal Dictionary for the legal definition of person. You will find that it is "a human being". Now you may proceed to attempt to prove that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a human being. It was that definition that forced the roe court to make their decision based on an assumption that unborns were something other than human beings. Not that they were not persons, but that they were not human beings. They knew as well as I that to argue that they were human beings but not persons was a losing argument as the term human being and person describe the same thing and are, in fact, interchangable terms.

Of course, as a utilitarian, you are perfectly willing to disregard the fundamental righs of one in favor of the theoretical right of another if it is necessary to achieve your "good".

Originally Posted by wilbur

Your misunderstandings all seem to stem from the shifting definitions of you employ of person and human. I've made clear distinctions between these things and argue that they are not the same, but you try to argue with me as if I think they are.

The only one "shifting" definitions here is you. The fact is that in the eyes of the law human being and person are one in the same. Further, a whole body of legal precedent exists that firmly establishes the personhood of the unborn at any stage of development.

Thus far, you have argued that person and human being are different things, but have offered up exactly squat in the way of proof. Clearly it is your opinion that they are different but your opinion doesn't carry enough weight to be considered credible evidence.

It is only upon careful observation, with a magnifying glass, on a sunny day, that one comes to realize how often ants burst into flames.

THANK YOU, for finally comprehending this point. And not everything human is a person or an individual human being. Things like embryos.

I have understood this point the entire time. The problem is you have no scientific proof of what you claim. A skin cell is not a human. It is part of an already living human, but it is not an actual human being. And embryo is a human being. You cannot take an embryo off of a human and re-grow it like skin cells. The embryo is the human being. There are many things that are human, human clothes, technology, etc. What is important is if something is a human being. Embryos, babies, adults, black people, white people; all are human beings.
You have absolutely no way to prove that an embryo is not a human being. You just continue on with this argument of personhood which makes no sense at all and is simply a way to lessen your guilt.

Originally Posted by wilbur

Your misunderstandings all seem to stem from the shifting definitions of you employ of person and human. I've made clear distinctions between these things and argue that they are not the same, but you try to argue with me as if I think they are.

You believe that a person is a human being that has a functioning brain, feelings, and all of the other things mentioned. Along these lines, someone who is numbed would HAVE to become less of a person because they do not have as many of the qualities you contribute to personhood. Less intelligent people who cannot think as well would be less human. Babies who are still very dependent would be less human. The elderly would become less human as they lose memory and those who become braindead would all be less human because of their lack of this personhood. They are all equally human. You then continue the argument stating that as long as someone had these qualities at least once, they will still be a person if they lose the qualities. That logic makes no sense whatsoever. If I am a millionaire and I lose all my money I am no longer a millionaire. If I have my legs chopped off just because I had them earlier in life does not mean I still have legs.

During the time of slavery and discrimination, people would devalue black people using nearly the exact same arguments you are using right now. They would say that black people are not persons because of their skin color and the fact that they were less educated. By freeing black people the Southern economy would collapse, and it did. Today people argue for the mother's economic condition just as people during the time of slavery argued for the economic survival of the plantation owner. The similarities are immense. Here is a quote from John F. Kennedy's Civil Rights Address:

Originally Posted by JFK

As I've said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

Not all human beings have equal talents or abilities. A young fetus does not have a complete brain that allows it to do what you see as personhood. But it still has the right to develop its brain, its ability to become human. Abortion takes away that right.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
-Ronald ReaganLife is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
"There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."

Seems wilbur has run away to hide from the facts. He has made claims that he can prove his argument when clearly he can't. I am relatively new here, is that his standard tactic?

For some but Wibur usually sticks it out.

“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”
G. K. Chesterton